Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?  (Read 25155 times)

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 938
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2006, 11:20:30 AM »

which hassy>contax adapter do you use Khun?
Logged

Khun_K

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • http://
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2006, 11:57:11 AM »

Quote
which hassy>contax adapter do you use Khun?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use MAM-1, I got some lense from my old 205TCC and 503CXi - I sold my Hasselblad body but keeps all the lenses.  My Contax+P45 works just fine with the 30mm fissheye, 50/2.8 FE, 100/2 FE, 150/2.8FE, 140-280 Schnieider, and the 300/2.8 FE TPP, they all work very nicely with 645 with either auto exposure or manual exposure.  The 300/2.8FE TPP is one of the biggest reason I stay with Contax because no other medium digital platform can use this lens. And I ahve been a Contax guy from the RTSIII all the way to N+N Digital, Contax 645 is the only Contax I still keep.
Logged

PhaqueName

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2006, 06:32:55 PM »

Quote
with the 30mm fissheye, 50/2.8 FE, 100/2 FE, 150/2.8FE, 140-280 Schnieider, and the 300/2.8 FE TPP, they all work very nicely with 645 with either auto exposure or manual exposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

to be clear, do the Hasselblad FE lenses work on the Contax 645 only in stop-down mode? i guess if you were shooting wide open, there'd be no comproise, but otherwise, you'd have to stop down to meter? if you shot wide open with the 110 FE at f2, do you trust the MAM to be focus-perfect? is the tolerance of manufacture that good? thanks.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2006, 06:35:24 PM by PhaqueName »
Logged

James Russell

  • Guest
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2006, 08:54:50 PM »

Quote
to be clear, do the Hasselblad FE lenses work on the Contax 645 only in stop-down mode? i guess if you were shooting wide open, there'd be no comproise, but otherwise, you'd have to stop down to meter? if you shot wide open with the 110 FE at f2, do you trust the MAM to be focus-perfect? is the tolerance of manufacture that good? thanks.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Name, or may I call you Phaque?

For the Contax I use the MAM 1 for the blad 100 F2, a zoerk for three pentax, a 165 2.8 a 105 2.4 a 135 macro and a Russian Tilt Shift 45mm

Even the 165 2.8 is in focus to the point you pick the eye you want and it's sharp.

Same with the 100 F2.

Maybe I'm lucky but they all come up sharp and I have used the 100 f2 at 4 to 5.6 and focus was not difficult or seemed that dark.

Then again you need to step back a moment and think about what you would use the converted lenses for.  Most of my manual lenses I will use close to wide open anyway, except maybe the 135 for a closeup beauty lens.

I doubt if I would put the blad 100 f2 on to stop down to F11 and if I really want to focus easily I stick with the Contax/Zeiss lenses which I have the range of 35= 3.5, 45 2.8, 80-2, 140-2.8, 210-4.

Like any camera the Contax takes some getting use to, and the viewfinder is not the size of an H-1 maybe in real world viewing not that much larger than a 1ds2, UNTIL you are shooting vertical for U.S. page size.

Then you have a much larger image to focus to as you don't have to pull back across the room to fit the page crop.

The Contax is a real cross over camera.  With autofocus and sharp standard lenses it works for commerce quite well.  For more esoteric work the ability to add different make lenses is really an advantage.

JR
[a href=\"http://www.jamesrussellphotography.com]http://www.jamesrussellphotography.com[/url]
Logged

GhostDancer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
    • http://
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2006, 10:14:50 PM »

Quote
to be clear, do the Hasselblad FE lenses work on the Contax 645 only in stop-down mode? i guess if you were shooting wide open, there'd be no comproise, but otherwise, you'd have to stop down to meter? if you shot wide open with the 110 FE at f2, do you trust the MAM to be focus-perfect? is the tolerance of manufacture that good? thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Phaquer,

Have we met somewhere?
LA, SOBE, NYC, Nashville?

Dancin

Hoka Hay
Aho
Logged

El Dentista

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • http://www.vamanos.com/
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2006, 12:27:03 AM »

Quote
Phaquer,

Have we met somewhere?
LA, SOBE, NYC, Nashville?

Dancin

Hoka Hay
Aho
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have heard of those magical places but for one.  Where is the NYC?

Will I find El Señor Phaque in that place?
Logged

James Russell

  • Guest
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2006, 01:20:38 AM »

Quote
I have heard of those magical places but for one.  Where is the NYC?

Will I find El Señor Phaque in that place?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't see the point in these type of posts, or these aliases that have cropped up lately.

Personally I think it is like painting graffiti on someone's home.

Why does on line discussion have to always bring up agendas and antics that serve no purpose?

I see some people selling equipment or pushing for trades, dealers giving competing offers, links to competing forums, articles that favor manufacturers, unsubstantuated rumors about established companies, personal attacks and the use of aliases that do nothing but lower the level of discussion.

I may not agree with the rule structure of this site, or even with all of the opinions of the site owner, but  this is the only popular public site that offers any real information.  What is the purpose of tearing it up?

This is the reason so many talented and experienced photographers stay away from all of the forums, public and private.


James Russell
Logged

khwanaon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • http://
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2006, 01:38:01 AM »

Quote
I don't see the point in these type of posts, or these aliases that have cropped up lately.

Personally I think it is like painting graffiti on someone's home.

Why does on line discussion have to always bring up agendas and antics that serve no purpose?

I see some people selling equipment or pushing for trades, dealers giving competing offers, links to competing forums, articles that favor manufacturers, unsubstantuated rumors about established companies, personal attacks and the use of aliases that do nothing but lower the level of discussion.

I may not agree with the rule structure of this site, or even with all of the opinions of the site owner, but  this is the only popular public site that offers any real information.  What is the purpose of tearing it up?

This is the reason so many talented and experienced photographers stay away from all of the forums, public and private.
James Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agree 100% with you, James.

Those posts have nothing to do here. I personnaly do not have anything against anonym postings, as long as they stay neutral and technically informative.
That's what this forum was thought for, isn't it?

I have only joined recently, but like James am asking myself what's the point of these postings.

Aon
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2006, 09:23:23 AM »

Like many in this particular forum, I moved from RG MF forum to this place when all the nice and talented people left.  I sincerely hope that does not happen again over here.  If a thread has no real interest to someone, it would best serve all if they just read quietly and let others who are seeking help/knowledge benefit a little.  Thank you.

Henry
Logged

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 938
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2006, 12:38:24 PM »

Quote
For the Contax I use the MAM 1 for the blad 100 F2,

I'm not aware of a Hasselblad 100/ 2.0 can you illuminate me?

merci
Logged

James Russell

  • Guest
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2006, 12:47:08 PM »

Quote
I'm not aware of a Hasselblad 100/ 2.0 can you illuminate me?

merci
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I meant the 110 F2

[a href=\"http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/thumbs/HH06999020466.jpg]http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/thumbs/HH06999020466.jpg[/url]

JR
Logged

mkravit

  • Guest
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2006, 02:23:21 PM »

Quote
I don't see the point in these type of posts, or these aliases that have cropped up lately.

Personally I think it is like painting graffiti on someone's home.

Why does on line discussion have to always bring up agendas and antics that serve no purpose?

James Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James,

Once again you hit the nail on the head.
I find all of this stuff childish and unecessary.
Logged

ddolde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2006, 10:44:37 PM »

Quote
Why does on line discussion have to always bring up agendas and antics that serve no purpose?

ROFL...pretty funny coming from a Fight Clubber where this is the norm.
Logged

Chuck Jones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
    • Chuck Jones Photography
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2006, 02:28:15 AM »

Henry, I am also using a Contax 645 for the past several years.  I am on my second Leaf back now with it.  The platform has been rock solid from the start.  In fact, it and the Hassy V system are probably the two most stable platforms out there today.  Ironic, I know, but the truth is the truth.  Build quality is excellent, and as the others have already said, the lenses are very good indeed.  For the money, even at the currently inflated prices on the used market, I don't know how you could possibly do any better than buy a Contax system.  If I had to choose a platform today, I would buy another Contax.
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2006, 05:52:36 AM »

Quote
Henry, I am also using a Contax 645 for the past several years.  I am on my second Leaf back now with it.  The platform has been rock solid from the start.  In fact, it and the Hassy V system are probably the two most stable platforms out there today.  Ironic, I know, but the truth is the truth.  Build quality is excellent, and as the others have already said, the lenses are very good indeed.  For the money, even at the currently inflated prices on the used market, I don't know how you could possibly do any better than buy a Contax system.  If I had to choose a platform today, I would buy another Contax.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Many thanks Chuck.

Seems everyone is happy with Contax as a platform for MFDB.  I wonder why investors are not going into whatever is left at Contax and rebuilding that company just for its 645 line.  I'm sure it will be a cheaper and surer bet than say Mamiya designing their ZD from scratch.

Henry
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • http://www.graham-mitchell.com
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2006, 06:53:25 AM »

Henry, you might want to do a little research into this story. Kyocera holds the rights to manufacture Contax bodies and they chose to cease production. The company wasn't in trouble, but someone at the top decided to kill off this division. Incredibly, they won't relinquish or sell the rights to allow the brand to continue. You could try sending a few angry letters. I did
Logged
Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2006, 08:35:25 AM »

Quote
Henry, you might want to do a little research into this story. Kyocera holds the rights to manufacture Contax bodies and they chose to cease production. The company wasn't in trouble, but someone at the top decided to kill off this division. Incredibly, they won't relinquish or sell the rights to allow the brand to continue. You could try sending a few angry letters. I did
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps they will decide to come back when they see they actually have a good asset in Contax.  I for one hope they do.

Henry
Logged

vgogolak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
    • http://
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2006, 11:40:39 AM »

Quote
Perhaps they will decide to come back when they see they actually have a good asset in Contax.  I for one hope they do.

Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As time marches on I think that Kyocera licence is up in a few years.

Still don't understand why Zeiss cant get back franchise from a 'non performance' point of view. Their lawyers were asleep?
Logged

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 740
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2006, 03:23:28 PM »

Quote
As time marches on I think that Kyocera licence is up in a few years.

Still don't understand why Zeiss cant get back franchise from a 'non performance' point of view. Their lawyers were asleep?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They may be able to get the trademark back for non-performance, but the tools and dies and the patented and unpatented technology may not be available to Zeiss or anyone else unless they buy those assets from Kyocera. My guess is that there is a game of chicken at play. Potential buyers assume that Kyocera should be willing to take a relatively small amount of money for assets that are no longer producing revenue for Kyocera, and Kyocera has to demonstrate a willingness to just sit there until someone meets or at least comes close to its price. What "should" happen is that  Phase and Leaf will combine, buy the Contax camera business and become a formidable competitor to Hasselblad's integrated solution. (Kodak was a major player in the MFDB business and made a strategic business decision to get out of it, so owning Leaf must still be viewed internally as non-strategic for Kodak.)
Logged

Sfleming

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
Contax 645 - still viable? a reliable system?
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2006, 07:08:55 PM »

Hi all,

Haven't been around much  lately.  Have gone all 4 x 5 all the time and am now selling 52" x 38" prints in a local gallery and through an art consultant.  Sales are brisk.

I'm about to list my entire Contax 645 Autofucus system on ebay.  Listing starts tomorrow.  If anybody is interested I can delay it and we can dicker.

I have the kit with 80mm.  Three years old (Like New).  35mm lens (2yr old bought full retail from B&H - Like New),  120 makro (9++),  210 mm (9),  battery grip ( Like New never used), flash (Like New never used ), metal hoods:  101, 72, 73 and 74 (Like New).  An extra film back with cap and 120/220 insert. (9) Three Duracell batteries I'll throw in and a cabel switch.  

Hope I'm not violating forum rules.

Scott Fleming
[email protected]

PS:  Give me a break here Michael.  You got me into this system and I'll never be able to afford a digi back.  
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up